ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24.01.2023 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the services of petitioners have been discontinued after completion of 11 months as Guest Faculty at Industrial Training Institute.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that in pursuance to the advertisement inviting applications for filling up the various posts of guest faculty/teacher (I.T.I) in the various Districts of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioners have applied for the same and on the basis of merit they have been selected as guest faculty for a period of 11 months. They have successfully completed their teaching work and there were no complaints regarding their work. It is their case that there was no complaints against the petitioners. Their work was found to be satisfactory. Therefore until and unless the regular appointment was made by the authorities the petitioners should have been continued. Placing reliance upon a judgement dated 26.04.2022 passed in W.P No.6159 of 2022, whereby this Court has granted an interim protection in favour of the guest teachers who have already worked for considerable time or in the previous session, the petitioners has prayed for the similar relief.

3. Counsel for the respondent/State has objected to the averments of the writ petition pointing out the fact that the appointments of the petitioners was contractual in nature. It was only for a period of 11 months. The working of the petitioners for the said period is over. Therefore, the authorities have removed the petitioners from the post of guest faculty. It is nowhere mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioners have been replaced by another guest faculty. In absence of any averment with respect to replacement of the petitioners with other guest faculty, no such protection can be granted to the petitioners because the appointment of the petitioners was contractual in nature. The judgement passed by this Court in W.P No.6159 of 2022 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. M.P State and Others) is also to the extent that in case the petitioners have worked in the previous session and are being replaced by another set of contractual employees but in absence of any cogent explanation or justification regarding replacement of the petitioner, no relief can be extended. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioners was on contractual basis as a guest faculty for a period of 11 months. It is not disputed that the petitioners have not been replaced by another set of contract teachers. Merely working for a period of 11 months does not entitle candidates like the petitioners to claim any indefeasible right for continuation of their work. The judgement passed in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav (supra) is of no help to the petitioners, as the same speaks that the fact that the candidate should have worked in the previous session and there should be their replacement by another set of contractual employees. In absence of any justification to the aforesaid, no relief can be extended to the petitioners.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saurabh Singh Baghel and others Vs. State of M.P and others reported in 2019 (1) MPLJ 643, have categorically held that the guest faculty cannot be replaced by another guest faculty. The petitioners have not mentioned any where in the writ petition that they have been replaced by another set of contractual employees. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioners. The law with respect to a contractual employee was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.N.Goyal reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 as well as by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.617 of 2015 (Brijendra Gupta vs. State of M.P. and Others) and bunch of writ appeals decided on 18.3.2016.

7. The H